Motion of Plaintiff for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion of Defendant to Quash Service of Subpoena
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING
LINE 3 25CV461733 Discover Bank v. Luis Marengo Motion of Defendant Luis Marengo To Quash Service of Summons. The motion is GRANTED. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”
LINE 4 25CV463973 Svetlana Tassel v. Old Orchard School Motion of Plaintiff for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion of Defendant to Quash Service of Subpoena (Code Of Civil Procedure, § 1008). The motion is DENIED. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”
LINE 5 25CV466751 City of Campbell v. Jeffrey Via Motion of Petitioner City of Campbell to Seal Records etc. The Petition Is GRANTED in its entirety. Counsel for Petitioner City of Campbell is to prepare an appropriate order for execution by this Court By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”
LINE 6 25CV469820 Ying Wang v. The John Stuart Co.; HomeFirst Motion of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara Services of Santa Clara County; Betty Ann County to Compel Plaintiff Ying Wang To Provide Further Gardens Leasing Office; Joanna Flores Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions. The motion of Motion of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County to Compel Plaintiff Ying Wang To Provide Further Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is to submit code compliant responses within 20 days of the filing and service of this order. The request of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County monetary sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a special motion for sanctions. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”
Calendar Line 4 Superior Court, State Of California County Of Santa Clara Department 1
161 North First Street, San Jose, Ca 95113 408.882.2330 Department21@scscourt.org http://www.scscourt.org (For Clerk's Use Only)
Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian is covering for Judge Eunice Lee on 30 June and on 02 July 2026
Case No.: 25CV463973 Svetlana Tassel v. Old Orchard School Date: 30 June 2026 9:00 am Line Number: 04
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
----oooOooo---
Motion Of Plaintiff To Reconsider This Court’s Order After The 02 December 2025 Hearing Granting Motion Of The Defendant To Quash Service Of Summons (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1008.)
On 02 December 2025, this Court adopted a tentative ruling granting Defendant Old Orchard School’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint. The minute order indicates Plaintiff was present in Court, but the Court denied plaintiff’s “untimely request to contest tentative ruling.”
Thereafter, on 02 December 2025, Plaintiff filed the present motion for reconsideration and motion to vacate void accompanied by proof of electronic service on Defendant’s counsel on 02 December 2025 Defendant’s Opposition was due on 16 June 2026 due to the Juneteenth holiday. No opposition has been filed as of 28 June 2026 at 11:03 PM.
This Court notes that on 11 May 2026, Counsel for Defendant Old Orchard School filed a Case Management Statement indicating that the defendant had not been served. Plaintiff’s motion argues, essentially, that this Court’s tentative ruling on her 02 December 2025 motion to quash was not posted on the Court’s website and she was denied due process in not being allowed to present oral argument.
“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. . . . . (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1008(a).)
To move for reconsideration of a prior court order on the basis of “new or different facts” or newly discovered evidence, the moving party must provide to this Court a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time. (Shiffer v. CBS Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 246, 255.)
The legislative intent of this requirement was to limit motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (See Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)
The moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence. (See Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.)
Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court rules concerning notification to the Court and to opposing counsel of a desire to appear and contest the posted tentative ruling does not constitute “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” For that matter, it neither renders the order “void.”
Additionally, “[t]he judge is not required to listen to oral arguments on a motion, but has discretion to decide the matter solely on the basis of supporting affidavits.” (Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom v. Ensher (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 318, 325; see also Wilburn v. Oakland Hospital (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1111; see Eddy v. Temkin (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1115.)
The motion of Plaintiff for reconsideration and to vacate a “void order” is DENIED. This case is also set for a Case Management Conference at 10:00 AM in this Department. The Court will hear counsel on the CMC immediately after the hearing on this motion.
___________________________ ____________________________________________ DATED: HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County Of Santa Clara
---oooOooo---